Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4 edit

Template:Db-g0 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was move to userspace. If you still wish to see it deleted, please feel free to re-nominate it at WP:MFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing humorous about this template. Someone seeing this template could mistake it for a {{Db-u2}} template and erroneously delete the page that is tagged. Or, someone seeing this template and attempting to deny the speedy deletion will be looking for a {{Db-u2}} template and find nothing. In most cases, humor is fine, but since this template essentially trolls users attempting to genuinely help Wikipedia (and since today is not April Fools' Day), this template's harm outweighs its humor. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the humor, but the rest of my statement applies. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've had this template for most of a year and it's caused no issues. I joke sometimes about my page getting deleted, but given it hasn't happened, I find it implausible. The template looks nothing like an actual U2 -- the size is completely off, U2 is much smaller. (I've checked this on a lot of different monitor sizes.) That's before getting into the fact the text is obviously a joke and bears no resemblance to the U2 text. Vaticidalprophet 03:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claim that "...The template looks nothing like an actual U2..." is false: The first sentence of the template:

      "This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page or subpage of a user that does not exist."

      ...looks almost identical to the first sentence of the {{Db-u2}} template:

      "This [namespace type] may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page, subpage, or talk page of a user that does not exist (check)."

      Confusion is unavoidable plausible if someone noticed only the first sentence and the structure of the template shape/color. Also, in regards to the slight cosmetic differences in between {{Db-g0}} and {{Db-u2}}: The fact that I didn't see them and still don't see them, even after you pointed them out, means it's quite plausible that other editors/admins could also confuse the two templates. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Levivich: Regarding your statement "If confusion were unavoidable, we'd be able to point to an actual instance of confusion occurring.": Fair enough, I've updated my comment accordingly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the similarity at all except in the broad-strokes "what the joke is based on" part. The bold text is different; the silhouette is different. Even well before you get to the point of looking at what the text says, the differences in the most obvious aspects should call someone's attention. Vaticidalprophet 05:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If confusion were unavoidable, we'd be able to point to an actual instance of confusion occurring. Levivich 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's been there for a while (no admins have accidently deleted the page...) and I find it funny 🤷‍♀️ -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the kind of nomination that gets called ragpicking at MfD. There's no indication that this has actually caused any amount of confusion to anyone, let alone so much confusion that it would necessitate deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Ragpicking only applies to page[s] in draft space or user space [...] when it is not obvious why anyone was looking at it in the first place. This is in neither draft namespace nor the user namespace, and it's obvious how Steel1943 found it. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem with all things like this is that they encourage other users to make similar things. There's plenty of examples that come here where people have copied other templates and modified them, thinking that that's what wikipedia is about. Nigej (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by this rationale. Can you explain it a bit further? The way it sounds to me is that you're making a generalized statement against humour templates, which would require a much wider discussion than a single TfD. The same issue applies to Gonnym's !vote. Vaticidalprophet 10:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am making a generalized statement. However the issue at hand is whether to keep this or delete it. The counter-argument is to say "we've already got hundreds of these useless things, one more doesn't matter". Nigej (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how this is procedurally relevant, though. If humour templates are inappropriate, that requires significantly wider discussion than a single template, given there are at least a few hundred of the things (e.g. everything under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Humour). It's not a relevant rationale if there's no actual widespread support for the idea they're inappropriate. Vaticidalprophet 12:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template does not add to collaboration or anything wiki-related and is used on user page to make it more social network-y. There are sites for that sort of thing, and en.wiki is not it. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This template is too visually and textually similar to {{Db-u2}}. Perhaps edit it to add a small image, or a different background color, or something to visually indicate that "this is humor". – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, a border box that this purple like the humor banner, should be added, or change the background to purple -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: For what it's worth, I just realized that transcluding {{Db|G0}} transcludes this template due to its name beginning with "Db-". If this template is kept, the name should probably be changed without leaving a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move/userfy there's no problem with this form of humor; I haven't seen it impede collaboration in any way, but Steel1943's concerns about the name are reasonable, so moving it to a separate title or userfying it should resolve that and make it clear this isn't a real CSD template. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy without redirect due to misleading name. I'll support deletion the day I see it actually cause disruption. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without objection to userfying. This is a case where a cost/benefit analysis is helpful. On the one hand, deleting this template risks frustrating the editors who find it humorous. That's not an enormous cost, but it isn't negligible either, particularly on a project that relies solely upon the goodwill of its volunteers in order to function. On the other hand, the benefits of deleting this template, which has been in use without incident for nearly four years, consist only of hypotheticals, many of which could be mitigated by some alternative to deletion (moving, userfying, and/or rewording) if problems actually materialized. As to the balance between these two factors, my view is simple: given a conflict between people and hypotheticals, people should win every time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless. The risks of U2 confusion seem to be basically nil. The template page marks it as humor, anyone paying the slightest attention will be able to tell that it's not a proper deletion template; it's not polluting any categories, and this isn't disruptive in any way. And anyone who deletes the page thinking it's a real U2 obviously didn't do the basic check to make sure the U2 case was valid. This is causing no harm to keep around. Hog Farm Talk 07:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless and funny. But most importantly: harmless. Levivich 18:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich. Now get on with your work! SN54129 19:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I know the following inquiry doesn't affect consensus in any way, but I'm curious: How many participants arrived here due to this discussion appearing on Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Article alerts? I'm curious because the WikiProject tag for Wikipedia:Department of Fun wasn't added to Template talk:Db-g0 (In fact, the aforementioned talk page didn't even exist) until after the discussion started: [1]. Just wondering since there are quite a few participants who usually don't participate in TFDs, and I'm wondering what drew them here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, vaguely ambiguous humour is legal. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, self-referential humor. The sadness caused by considering its deletion outweighs any potential harm the template could do. —Kusma (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer deletion, no issue with userfy per above. This might even have been deleted under CSD when we had template CSD for "obvious policy misrepresentation". I don't think it's appropriate to create main-templatespace templates that are jokes about CSD given the gravity of CSD. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is humorless. Almost. On to my actual !vote, this isn't going to cause any harm if the admins read beyond the first sentence. Additionally, it doesn't add the userpage to any CSD categories. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... And if any admins actually delete, they didn't even follow the procedures for U2. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (fine with userfy). I don't see the humour here, but more importantly, it's just junk in the template namespace and also what Izno said. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came across the background on vati's talk. Just noting for the record I don't really feel strongly about this, and if others do (in the preference of keeping) then that's fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy, seems fine for userspace. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm usually for deletion of "humor templates" but I actually find this one rather clever. As for deletion, actual CSD tags put the tagged page into a CSD category which is how admins find tagged pages. Since this template doesn't place the user page in a deletion category, I think it's very unlikely that an admin will stumble upon a tagged user page and delete it by mistake. I also think the argument that ANY humor template encourages the creation of worse humor templates isn't a strong argument as I'm pretty sure that more people have seen this template because of this TFD discussion than were aware of it before this discussion started. Editors really have to go looking for them and if this argument was valid, that would necessitate the deletion of all 500+ humor templates in Category:Humorous user templates since it would apply to any of them. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, most the pages in Category:Humorous user templates are already userspace templates. Of the ones in template namespace, like Template:User hipster or Template:User gifted or Template:Not retired none can be even possibly mixed up with something 'official' like a CSD template; they're all userboxes. So none of these are really comparable examples. I don't think as many would have an issue with this template in template namespace if it were in a userbox form, for example. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:4TeamBracket-Stepladder edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused bracket templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Couple of months old and unused. No idea why someone would create such things and not use them within a day or so. Nigej (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2021–22 Bangladesh Federation groups tables edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused standings templates with no major edits except for creation. Probably were abandoned by the creator. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Electoral Districts of Lebanon edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and clearly unfinished since it's a navbox with no links. Not sure there's really any content to link to, and the miniscule maps of Lebanon don't help. Nigej (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:EIA Current Collaboration edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused banner for the "current Education in Australia Collaboration of the Month selected article!". Someone tried to speedy delete it 14 years ago. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:EU Special Member State Territories edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused clickable map. Presumably intended for Special member state territories and the European Union but there's no map there. Doesn't really work with much overlapping and congestion, even if some of the obvious errors were corrected. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:EU member states' opt-outs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since the content was copied to Opt-outs in the European Union#Summary table a year ago, since when it has been subject to the cut-and-thrust of editing by different people and has turned into something quite different, exactly as the system is meant to work. Nigej (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Swedish princes by marriage edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since it's surplus to {{Swedish princes}} which has a note 4 covering these. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:SwedishPrimeMinistersTimeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long vertical timeline, unused and not updated since 2013. List of prime ministers of Sweden#Timeline has its own style. Nigej (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Ship classes of the Swedish navy 1940 to present edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with {{WWII Swedish ships}} and {{ActiveSwedishNavyClasses}} being used instead. Nigej (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does have more information about historic classes then the one being used that only includes active vessels.Walle83 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think it can supersede the other two, then you should use it, replacing those currently used. Might be worth discussing somewhere first. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PhilAtlas detail edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. PhilAtlas was listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist in June 2020. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:User SwedishMilitaryRanksBefore1972 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All now unused. I have copied the contents of the first three to Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces. The other two are insignia templates, not needed as Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces covers the area Nigej (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:RankPersonsDistributionRegular edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table of the number of personnel in the Swedish Armed Forces from 2009 to 2012. Not used. Nigej (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Population tableau edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and nearly 3 years old. Creates a table with years and populations. Nigej (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I created it for the sake of creating it. I enjoyed making it, but yeah, it's unused. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Polytechnic colleges in Kerala edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of polytechnic colleges in Kerala in the form of a navbox, but no articles to link to. Nigej (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Delete as it fails navigation. Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PALon COTM edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template banner for the current Public Art in London Collaboration of the Month! Unused and not likely to be used again. No mention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art/London. Nigej (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, not a hint of it ever being used and even if it were to be used, I'd support deletion as there are just too many talk page banners and this should not be one of them. Gonnym (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I created the template. These Collaborations of the Month were a short-lived (but worthwhile) experiment, and this template won't be used again. Ham II (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Vietnamese military insignia templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates created in Sep 2021 for inclusion in Vietnamese military ranks and insignia. However the additions were reverted and they are now unused. The last one seems to be a copy of one of the others, presumably created by mistake. Nigej (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Thessaloniki Metro Phases 1 and 2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; redundant to {{Thessaloniki Metro}}. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Garfield Route (1953-1958) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Garfield Park branch (CTA). ✗plicit 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Garfield Route (1953-1958) with Template:Garfield Park branch (CTA).
The Garfield Park branch articles uses {{Garfield Park branch (CTA)}} right now; {{Garfield Route (1953-1958)}} is unused. They're different enough I'm unsure which should be kept and whether a merge would be appropriate, but we probably only need one going forward. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Typhoon status small edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unused and no edits since 2012. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Tram cars of UralTransMach edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{UTM tram cars}}. Nigej (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relates to alternative versions of who the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors were. Written as a navbox but just confusing. The parent article has a section on "Variations" which works better. Nigej (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Tibetan Buddhist Refuge Formulations edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been extracted from Refuge in Buddhism at some point and now it's been translated into Chinese. Difficult to imagine any usage. Nigej (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Judeo-Christian navboxes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Template:Christian navboxes and Template:Jewish navboxes. –Ploni (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the balance, I'm a weak keep for the large navbox and an according weak delete for the two small ones. My biggest pause here is the IP's comment about adding Islam here, which I think would likely make this template too large. Of course, I am not totally certain of the utility of navboxes linking to other navboxes when we do usually have a category for the same, which usually presents information sufficiently. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, I don't see a serious problem with the current setup. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of Vehicle registration plates of the European Union edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant to {{Timeline of Vehicle registration plates of Europe}} which is used at Vehicle registration plates of Europe#Timeline. Nigej (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...Those are one of the worst layout designs I've seen yet. I couldn't tell what is a link and it was not even clear what I was reading. Anyways, delete both as unused. Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of political parties in the National Council of Austria edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relates to National Council (Austria)#Since 1945, which has a timeline already showing the size of the parties too.Nigej (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of Tabaristan edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the rules of Tabaristan. Doesn't work, with confusing abbreviations and small, overlapping text. Nigej (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of the history of the Republic of Turkey edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were considered at this mass TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Unused timeline templates and kept. Still unused and unusable with minute illegible text. Nigej (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of Nancy Pelosi's political career edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was userfy per request. ✗plicit 10:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timelines. Style doesn't really work for me. Needs to be copied somewhere eg Electoral history of Joe Biden and then deleted or just deleted. Nigej (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of Test Teams edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timelines relating to Test Cricket teams, Twenty20 International teams and the Indian Premier League. Were added to these articles but since deleted. There's a vast amount of coverage for the Indian Premier League and something like Indian Premier League#Teams' performances works better as a timeline than the one here. Nigej (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline of Early Netherlandish painters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Early Netherlandish painting. However this timeline from 2006 is unused and given its old-fashioned style it's difficult to imagine it ever being used. Nigej (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Timeline early Python edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for Python (programming language) only up to 2005 for some unknown reason. History of Python is the only plausible place for it, but that uses a different style. Nigej (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. History article uses a different graph. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it goes to 2005 to signify "early" releases. It was intended to go to History of Python, along with other timelines that cover more modern history from 2005. However, it's clearly abandoned. Not sure what deleting will achieve. +mt 12:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

MBTA line diagrams edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused line templates showing various stages of MBTA lines. Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Two hundred untranscluded route diagram templates there probably isn't a use for them. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Greater Manchester bus route 184 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; the parent article was deleted. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No longer has a purpose. Nigej (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_4&oldid=1074873618"